I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Invalid opinion

There's been a lot of chit-chat on the EVE forums, Twitter, Failheap, and elsewhere about the validity of opinion.

The four subjects I've been hearing about it the most often are surrounding:

super-cap balancing (where I've weighed in here and very briefly on Failheap);

the transposition of sovereignty mechanics to NPC null-sec and/or low-sec (where I've weighed in on Twitter)(1);

the impact of incursions on the EVE economy (where I've weighed in everywhere); and,

botting (where I've likewise weighed in everywhere).

In all four cases, there's a difference of opinion among EVE's intelligentsia about whether or not the opinions of people not involved in these activities matter. And in a twist that I find highly ironic, the answer seems to be "no", "no", "yes", and "yes", respectively. Put another way:

people who don't own super-caps apparently aren't allowed to bitch about super-caps; and,

people who aren't in sov-holding alliances apparently aren't allowed to comment about EVE sov mechanics and how they're applied; but meanwhile,

people who've never run an incursion in their lives apparently are allowed to propose massive changes to incursions; and,

people who don't bot apparently are allowed to propose how bots should be dealt with.

I find that dichotomy interesting.

I put the four topics in that order specifically because the two on either end -- super-caps and botting -- are both the topics most familiar to a wide swath of EVE players. On the other hand, the two in the middle (sov and incursions) are mostly of interest to EVE cognoscenti of various stripes and are less interesting those who aren't all that involved. All four topics, however, create quite a lot of e-drama within whatever audiences do subscribe to this opinion or that one. And yet, the irony remains: there exists exact opposite opinions on whether people should be allowed to talk about four problems which are in essence rather similar.

Why are they essentially similar? Because all four of them are viewed by a subset of players as existential threats to the game.

The e-drama comes from the fact that when I say something like "people who don't own super-caps aren't allowed to bitch about super-caps" or "people who don't bot are allowed to propose how bots should be dealt with", no matter which position I or anyone else champions, there will be dozens -- if not hundreds -- of people who will call bullshit. It's just the number of people involved that differs. Most people, when presented with discussions of sov or incursions, don't care all that much. It's a smaller but vocal number of players that are up in arms about it.

A couple of weeks back, I had the "you've never owned a super-cap so you shouldn't be talking about super-caps" thing thrown in my face a few times, thought it through for a few days, and decided that while I understand that position, I disagree with it. Super-caps affect me because they affect how I play EVE: I rarely undock in a battleship without considering the possibility and likelihood of hot-drops, for instance. My hictors (of which I have a couple) are specifically fit to tackle super-caps. Even in NPC 0.0, I encounter super-caps quite frequently, though of course in smaller numbers than what I used to encounter when I was a sov warrior. And finally, my main characters are all approaching the number of SP where I have to decide if a super-cap is one of my own end-game goals in EVE simply because sometime this year, two of them are going to run out of things to train for if I decide they're not.

So like it or not, I'm involved in that one, and in a variety of ways. I could make similar arguments for the other three, two of which I've directly done, the other one (botting) I haven't.

Botting comes up with the other three despite the fact that though it inspires a lot of passion in people, it's also a topic that's becoming less controversial year by year in New Eden, not more. It used to be very clear: everyone was against botting. These days, the player base is a lot less clear cut on this issue. We're in CSM election season and trust me: all four of these topics are going to come up. But last year, you couldn't go two posts in a CSM candidate's Jita Park post before "botting! is! a! cancer!" came up.

This year so far, it's barely visible at all, except in a question that UAxDEATH was asked about it on Failheap. His answer was interesting to say the least. It essentially boiled down to "if CCP doesn't care about botting, why should I?"... and the questioners on Failheap just seems to have accepted that answer. Quite a change from last year! Last year, if you even hinted at anything other than "Death! to! bots!", you were endlessly hounded. This year so far, it's rating a "meh". Hell, that lack of passion is in and of itself becoming a source of passion for some people. ;-)

Now, invalidating the opinions of others is, of course, nothing new either in EVE or in life. I'm sure the very first caveman that pointed over a hill and grunted that hunting was probably better over there was told that since he'd never been over that hill, he wasn't qualified to say how the hunting there was. "Opinions are like assholes", the (crude) old saying goes, "everyone has one"... with the unspoken implication that most people's opinions are as unpleasant as the body part they're being compared to.

Still, I live in the U.S., which means I believe in free speech. I play EVE, which means that I can be an anti-social jerk when the mood strikes me.(2) And I blog about EVE, which means I have a pretty thick skin. The combination of those three factors means that I'm going to continue to weigh in on these four topics even if it means the occasional anonymous commenter goes out of his way to try to invalidate my opinion.

Sorry about that

P.S. Solo L4 Mission Guide Part 3 tomorrow most likely, so you can quit asking about it, anonymous commenter. ;-)

(1) Note to self: write post about the transposition of sov mechanics to NPC 0.0 and low-sec space.(2) Hush.

38 comments:

"Why are they essentially similar? Because all four of them are viewed by a subset of players as existential threats to the game."They're also inter-related to the point that would make a West Virginian blush.

You post about how sov is all about SuperCaps Online now (I agree but since I don't fly them either, my opinion is also equally invalid), so the first two are definitely tied together.Even if I give you that Incursions are NOT a huge ISK fire hydrant wide-open pushing 2000 GPM of EVE monopoly-money (and I certainly do not) day in and day out, they have significantly increased the available ISK in the EVE economy. Along with the other "faucets" which are as you yourself have said, are insufficently checked by "sinks", this makes for an environment in which buying supercaps is easier.

Lastly, botting, especially of the mining variety, means more access to minerals, which means easier production of the base parts for caps, which means overall easier production of caps. Rat-botting is of course a smaller-scale personal-style ISK faucet that allows one to rack up wealth and again, makes the ownership of ordinarily expensive ships, even if not caps and supercaps, easier and easier.

Of course these are not equally dependent upon each other. I have yet to hear of successful "incursion botting", so those two issues, while related, are definitely not directly influencing each other. Taking away, or seriously nerfing supercaps will most definitely change the doctrines and strategies of Sov warfare... however changing the mechanics of sov warfare may or may not alter the prolific use of supercaps (though, let's face it, it's doubtful they can change sov warfare sufficiently to nullify the effect of "moar superz = bettar fl33t").Dialing down the ISK faucets, especially if also balancing them with large sinks, will have an (obvious) effect (is obvious) on the valuation and use of supercaps, thus changing, at least in a way, how sov warfare is waged.

The validity of an opinion, really, is pretty easy to calculate. All opinions can be boiled down to the equation of Opinion = Observation + Perception, where Observation and Perception are relative to each other and total to 100%. An opinion where Observation is 10% and Perception is 90% of the basis, is a far less valid opinion than one where Observation makes up say, 80%, and Perception 20%, of the total opinion equation.

However, the equation can be invalidated in the case of "gut instincts" -- as with your piece on tracking-enhanced supercaps nailing subcaps with ease.Then again, you actually conducted experiments, and so gained observation to temper your perception, so... ;-)

I would argue that there are three factors to an opinion, the third being perspective. Without some balance between the three, you end up at the perception-only end of the triangle screaming "death to all super caps" and at the observation-only end screaming "super caps are fine! nerf HICs!" while at the perspective-only end you'll be calmly watching everyone and having no opinion at all.

So maybe perspective is an imaginary component while observation and perception are real components of the complex equation.

As I was using the terms, "perception" = "perspective". Or, more accurately, you can only perceive what you perceive from a certain perspective. If you change the perspective, what you perceive changes likewise, unless you claim to be a Zen master and observe everything "without judgment or attachment" from a completely detached state ... which even Zen masters will tell you is difficult for them to keep up all the time. ;-)

tl;dr edition: A dog is biting a boy, maiming him horribly, and a police officer intervenes, eventually having to shoot the dog to get it off the boy. (this is all fact/observation)There's 2 local news outlets. Fox News is generally conservative and supports government, family values, mom, and apple pie (perception/perspective) and runs the story with the headline, "Local Hero saves boy from death by crazed animal."The Huffington Post, which Communist China is on record as saying "it's too extremist for us," (opposite perspective provides opposing perception) runs the same story, with the headline, "Jackbooted thug kills family pet in cold blood, PETA sues government!"

Jester, for the most part, I think tries to see the "objective fact" and draw reasonable, rational conclusions from it based upon his knowledge and experience.I do see a lot of other people who apparently haven't done half the homework he has, though, dismissing his ideas, critiques, etc, as the sort of twisted opinions you'd expect to see from spin-heavy media. :-/

I think Botting as become an issue that is not mentioned as much anymore because there is nothing to say about it. People botting should be banned, period. We can police eve all we want but in the end its CCP's job to actually implement ways against it. The ball is in their court so to speak.

The sov warfare changes issue reminds me of the fact that some CSM's want to use low sec/FW as a testbed for 0.0. This I dislike alot. FW isn't a testbed, low sec isn't a testbed. They are seperate areas that deserve more then just being some kind of testpad for 0.0. Let 0.0 be the testbed for 0.0 and find innovative, interesting and enjoyable options for lowsec/FW.

PS: If you ever fought with or against superaps, you know they need work.

It can be also said that the yes/no dichotomy Jester is speaking of is a consequences of all these subjects being viewed only through one perspective (the super cap, sov holding, bot supported, player base who thinks everyone should be playing "their" game perspective).

You give the "Eve intelligentsia" differing opinions on the issues in such a manner as to suit your argument. You indignantly whine that "anyone can criticize Incursions" whereas "only supercap owners can fix supercaps." Claiming that no one says "you must run incursions to fix them" is a lie, but you choose not to express the opinion of some Incursion-runners that only they can fix Incursions. idgi

You've rammed right into the dichotomy I talk about in the post. ;-) The "no", "no", "yes", "yes" answers that I give are the general consensus I see forming on the various EVE fora.

Though of course, that's just my opinion and therefore just as liable to be called as bullshit as everything else. ;-)

That said, (again IMO) the dichotomy exists even if you say only one of those factors rates a "no" and the others rate a "yes" or vice versa. Only if all four answers are "yes" or "no" together does the dichotomy disappear.

Is that the case? Even you don't seem to think so, if your last paragraph is any guide.

I realize this is a subtle point, which is why this post was tagged "geek philosophy."

I'm a big fan of EVE = RL allegories. So let me give you one.In the outside-of-EVE world (yes, there does exist one I promise!), I am a firefighter with 8 yrs in Fire, thousands of hours of specialized training and hands-on experience, who does things on a regular basis that most people say they wouldn't do for a million bucks.

Meanwhile, those self-same people who wouldn't do what I do for a million... will stand on the streetcorner outside a burning building while I have an interior team operating, pushing flames out a window as they put the fire out, and tell me I should get water on the flames coming out that window.Little do they know, the flames are coming out of that window because the water from the interior hose is pushing it out that window.Even littler do they know, if I direct a hoseline to spray INTO that window from the outside, I would cause the flames to blow back on my interior team and seriously harm, or even kill them.

I know this because of prior training and experience amounting to personal knowledge. Joe Schmoe on the street corner does not. Joe Schmoe may have the sensory ability to see flames coming out of a window (observation), but lacks the training, experience, and knowledge to correctly perceive what it means, and apply that perception into proper action.Therefore, Joe Schmoe's opinion is very, VERY invalid in this circumstance.

Now, does one need to run Incursions constantly to have a VALID opinion on them? No. But a bare basic knowledge of their workings would be a prime requirement.

For example, the True Bear who has never set foot in lowsec, believes that every gate is camped and wandering into a .4 system means instant death, does NOT have a valid opinion concerning "fixing" lowsec -- he lacks any sort of observational fact...his "opinion" is perception-only and based upon wild speculation and perhaps some rumor-mongering.

Then again, the young Tusker who may be an excellent lowsec pirate, but doesn't know what an SBU is or what to do with it, is not the guy to tell us how to "fix" sov.Now, if he were at least knowledgeable about the basic workings, even if he'd never been a sov warrior himself, he'd at least have some credibility to put an opinion out there. He may not have "experience" directly, but he has knowledge and education, which DOES count for something.

The funny thing I see about Incursions is that they started what, :18months: ago? Yet the populace clings to them like they're some "Gawd-given RIGHT, dad gummit!" that's been on TQ since Launch Day... and oh the screams, wails, gnashing of teeth, and tears, at any talk of nerfing them or, Gawd Forbid, taking them away... to me it's pretty damn ridiculous to act that way over a feature that is, relative to the lifetime of the game, still in its toddling stage.

Most of the "bittervets" lived long before supercaps, LONG before Incursions... and I think you all would live long without em, too.

I too have several topics on which I have "expertise" IE personal experience combined with wrote learning, which is what you described. This is a "professional" opinion, not a "lay" opinion. The ‘Professional Opinion’ counts for much, it can tell you many things, how 'this' interacts with 'that' etc.

But, as with our current CSM, there is the inherent problem of "Conflict of Interest" when the ONLY people allowed to have a functional opinion on any given topic are the same people who benefit from said topic, you have an imbalance and the distinct possibility, if not probability of self serving abuse of this power.

This is an age old and as plain as the nose on yer face issue... and this is the MAIN reason all opinions, Expert, Lay and asinine are allowed in "open" forum discussions... so as to not gag any opinion, allowing, hopefully the ‘worthwhile’ to be culled from the chaff of crap that will ensue.

In the case of SuperCaps, of which I know nothing personally and only what I read empirically, Balancing, IE making SCaps moar or less effective, is not going to tend towards ‘less’ if the people flying them are the only people whose opinions count. We need the opinion of the people who are on the receiving end of the SCaps DPS too… Unless you want EVE to be a game that can actually have an “endgame” where one Alliance takes over completely and no one can ever undock ANYTHING unless you join them.

It is sometimes the nonsensical opinion, the crack pot notion, the wild-assed idea, that wins the day. Offered up by those who are not bloodying their foreheads on the tree right in front of them, but have taken a step back and see the forest… even if, hell especially if, the trees they see are different from the ones you see.

I hold that ALL opinions are Valid…. just ‘most’ are full of shit… you gotta read a lot to find the nuggets of gold.

there is also a discussion rolling, that the drone regions should lose their alloy drops and get bounty´s instead.If you have a look at the following thread, that was opened up by a dev from CCP : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=36195&find=unread

There you can see that the biggest whiners are those guys that don´t even live in drone space, nor in nullsec at all. And they shout at CCP like little kids.

I still think, even with UaXdeath supporting this idea from CCP (but I guess he stopped ratting a loooong looong time ago),that the tweaking of the mining profession with nerfing the special thing about drone space isn´t the way to go.

Well you might think: "Ok your a producer in DS so you don´t like it"

Well that might be true, but not ISK whise, more logistic whise.If the prices goes up and I need to get my materials from another and/or externel source then you "the player" will pay more for it, of course.And as you need t1 hulls also for t2 production, you can think yourself if that marked is influenced, too.

Yep, this is another excellent example of a "yes/no" question on whether only the people involved are "eligible" to comment.

It differs from the other four in that (IMO) it isn't an existential threat to the game. It's also fun in that there's no clear-cut "yes/no" answer on this one the way there is on the others, though part of that is surely the fact that Russians don't generally hang out on the English-speaking EVE fora.

Taxes rarely work as control measures, what is the reason behind them.

besides the fact 25M is an inconsequential amount to a Supercap owner (unless you only have one account, which I don't think any of them does.)

All placing a tax means is less time using it, and more time on the other account trading up/incursions or whatever it is they decide to do for ISK. That's assuming that peoples alliances don't end up paying said tax.

If you want to improve the super situation, I honestly believe you can balance them as much as you like, but ultimately there should be only one of two goals, they either need to slow the build rate, so less of them come into the world, or improve the kill rate so more of them depart.....

More than anything else it's the fact that there are more and more of them in existence that is becoming an issue. I don't know exactly how many there are total, but it wouldn't surprise me if every system in New Eden could have one in it if you distributed them evenly, and at a build/death ratio of 5/1 or what ever it was it's just going to death spiral unless something is done.

Ideally they need a build death of Par, and for a little while the goal should be to reduce numbers slightly.

quote:Still, I live in the U.S., which means I believe in free speech.

Since when do you have free speech?example: Yesterday I watched some Galactica episodes (original)...they said "fracking" instead of fucking. Is that an example of your free speech? Why are US celebrities so astonished when they are guest in a German TV-show and someone says Penis live?

Botting may well be a good source of minerals at the moment - and as such it stops mineral prices from rising.

That said, the 'botting meh!' position is a little dangerous. What sort of botting is allowed, and what isn't? Generally automation gets better over time rather than worse; so how do you feel about market bots doing margin trading? mission running bots? incursion running bots? plex farming bots? gate camping bots?

Some of these already exist, all of these are possibilities. All of them cut into ways in which people either make isk currently, or play the game.

Having an opinion on a subject is luckily a right we all (should) have. So it is up to the decision maker to determine which opinion has more weight.

Who ever said that opinion on super-caps can only come from people who fly them isn't the brightest. There abilities influence many parts of the game and I don't need to own a titan to get 100+ people jumping right on top of me in less than 3 seconds. You can't judge a rapist unless you raped someone your self? Poor women in this world if that's the case!At least all those people who encounter super caps or experience there force projection have an opinion with some foundation.

In case of Sov it's the same thing. If you exclude all those who don't hold sov right now I come to the conclusion that they just don't want others to have sov. There are many small alliances out there that would like to hold sov but can't fight an enemy who is 10 or even 100 times stronger.If this small group goes on war against the big one, what can they do? Roaming through their space but that only disturbs business for a short time. The big one don't need to fight back because there is no target that's vulnerable to a small gang. I really would like to see something like "hacking the i-hub" to get 10% of the bounty hunted in this system for the next 3 hours. That would force a response of the sovholder but would not mess with different time zones.

I don't have to fly Incursion to see that we capsuleers enjoy the starving of humanity under sanshas influence while the sites are farmed to hell. I think concord should reduce payout for smaller sites once a certain level of influence was broken. Once the bar gets blue only the big sites should pay well as the main threat comes from there.

Botting is a problem we all should care about. Having our "great leaders" saying things like "I'm not the police for ccp and we don't piss each other" is a shame. If my friend cheats in a solo game I don't care or even get myself some hints. But in an MMO anybody should have a zero tolerance attitude since it is effecting to many. There are no excuses for doing it. No one needs to get a titan on his one. If your alliance forces you to do that, it is the wrong alliance, period.Those who are botting want to be part of the big players but don't have the balls to tell there leader that this target will need more time. They have no backbone and will never be one of the big player but just another follower who's running behind someone else dream.

It’s an interesting take on the discussion. And although I agree with you that good discussions about any topic shouldn’t exclude people on basis of not owning/experiencing said topic first hand, I am not necessarily agreeing with you as to why this problem arises in the first place.I have myself used invalidation in the discussion of supercaps – admittedly not directed at anyone in particular – because in that discussion, I think there are several groups of players which opinion should NOT be taken into serious consideration by the games designers. And the reason for this is that their arguments have nothing to do with game design:The first group is the emotional group. A rather large group of players that hate supercaps, because they perceive these ships to be the direct reason for lost ships, lost battles, failcascading corporations and alliances, and/or eviction from their former homes. If we look back at the conflict between the DRF and the NC last year, you will find many who are of the opinion that the NC lost because the DRF and allies “blobbed everything with supercaps”, while the truth of the matter is that supercaps wasn’t even employed until the very final stages of that conflict and the NC collapsed from within after experiencing outside pressure no greater that it had survived twice before.The second group is the politicians. In EVE, supercaps equal power, and there are several groups that would gain immensely should supercaps be abolished or nerfed into oblivion. First and foremost of these is of course Goonswarm with their supercap deficiency compared to xDeath/PL/Raiden/NCdot. When The Mitanni uses his “death to all supercaps” meme he does this NOT from a game design perspective, but from an in-game political perspective. The in-game messaging from his forum warriors are also incredibly consistent and in line with this theme. The third group is the ignorants. People who act like parrots on auto repeat chiming on whichever opinion bandwagon that is all the rage at the moment. The EVE-O forums is filled with these people, speaking with authority on subjects they know nothing whatsoever about.But there is also a fourth group. A group I will call “detached observers”, with or without direct knowledge of the topic at hand they will still weigh in with unbiased quality posts bringing substance to the discussion. If you are in this group, I would personally never use invalidation against you, regardless of your experience, regardless of your opinion. Usually Jester, you belong firmly in this group. On the discussion about supercaps however, you have at least one if not both legs in the emotional one. :)

The point I try to keep in mind while reading is to determine whether or not the opinion being expressed is informed or not. The perspective of the individual a secondary opinion. You can always tell when someone is playing the politicos game when they state that the only "valid" opinions are coming from the "right" people.

I've never agreed with the proposition that only someone involved in an activity can have an opinion on how that activity is or is not functioning. Indeed, history has shown that oftentimes the best (relative) objective analysis can only come from outside. A fresh set of eyes, so to speak.

That doesn't mean that good analysis must only come from the outside, of course. Whether from an insider or an outsider, the trick is whether or not bias can be filtered. If an insider, can that person truly look at something impartially that could be bad for them, but good for the organization? If an outsider, can that person properly assess when their lack of intimate knowledge might be tending to invalidate some of their analysis?

Given the sandbox nature of Eve Online, almost everyone is affected in some way by the actions of others. Wasn't that the premise of the 'butterfly' trailer, a few years ago? In my opinion, one doesn't have to be involved in a certain area of Eve Online in order to be allowed to have an opinion on the matter. Having an *informed* opinion.. now that's another issue ;-)

On botting: saying I shouldn't have an opinion on botting because I haven't botted, is - imho - identical to saying that I should not have an opinion on car theft because I have never stolen a car. Botting is against the EULA, and to me that means it's in a different category than the first three points you mentioned, whether people are passionated about it or not.

I think it is the idea that someone who hasn't botted has no experience botting, just like people who dont fly scaps have no experience there. Everyone is affected by bots, everyone is affected by scaps.

The fact that it is against the rules of the game should, as you say, put it in a different category but the idea is the same and I think it makes the point very well; saying you have to actively do something to have an opinion is just silly.

I don’t understand the problem. All opinions can be dismissed, if they are used in an argument as a replacement of evidence. The super cap owner’s/incursion runner’s/anybody’s opinion worth exactly the same: nothing. Now, if they present evidence in support of their argument, you can accept/dismiss it based on the evidence, not who they are. For example: if someone presents data that incursions are indeed a huge ISK faucet, you can’t say his/her data is invalid because he/she isn’t an incursion runner. If you do, you are committing an ad hominem fallacy. Likewise a super cap pilot can argue that “super caps are fine”, without evidence his argument worth nothing, and you can safely dismiss it. If you don’t, you just fell for the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy.

(Also your caveman example is wrong, even within its own fallacy. “Others” weren’t hunting on that hill either; therefore they are just as unqualified as the one pointing the hill. Their own ad hominem applies to them. Silly cavemen… Also my first comment here and English is not my native language. If something is unclear ask and I will try to clarify it.)

I have been in 0.0, but never lived there. While I am entitled to have an opinion on 0.0 Sov (or its mechanics, or whatever), the value of my opinion is limited. I'm ok with that.

I have been in lowsec, but never lived there. While I am entitled to have an opinion on losec mechanics or whatever, the value of my opinion is limited. I'm ok with that.

I have not flown a super capital, but my EVE experience is affected by their existence. My EVE play is affected by their presence. You're damn right I have an opinion on them, and it has validity (at least in my eyes). As I can only see their affect on me and my game play, it may colour my opinion as I don't live in 0.0 and reduce its value. Reduce, not set to zero. I am ok with that.

Incursions. I do them occasionally. Do I make good ISK doing them? Yup. I do them for an evening or two at a time, then I go forth and do other things. Incursions have made it so I don't do L4's. Is my opinion on Incursions valuable? Yup.

As for botting: 1) its against EULA therefore should be banned. Period. 2) it affects the prices for everything in EVE. As I both produce and purchase it affects me.Now I don't live in the Drone regions, so gun mining is something I haven't experienced, but my opinion concerning getting minerals that way is certainly valid. I often mine to produce my toys that I sell. So botting directly affects me. Is my opinion on them valid? Yup. Is it valuable? Sorta, it kinda looses value due to the large (overwhelming) number of similar opinions.

So.

I am allowed to have opinions (and pardon me, all opinions are valid, however some are not as valuable as others) on all topics. I will agree that my opinion on Super caps and Null Sov are of limited value, but as both Null space actions to affect EVE they affect me. In regards to incursions and botting, they both directly affect me and so my opinions are valuable.

At the end of all this, I can say that having an opinion and having a valuable opinion all depend upon the knowledge they are derived from. I may not bot, but I know about the impact they have, as I have spent time digging into the effects. I know about incursions both from experience and getting information from dedicated incursion runners. I know little about Null Sov.

All opinions are valid - just some are more valuable than others. To discount the value solely based on the users experience and not their knowledge is wrong.

According to your logic Jester, a Ragnarok (60B isk, fitted well with Faction/Deadspace modules) should therefore get the following statistics (In terms of cost ratio)~28.5M EHP~28,500 dps

If the argument follows that the more isk you put into it, you should get an equal value of dps/ehp out of it, then that's that.

However. That's not the true cost of either ship. You have skillbook costs associated with each ship. A Ragnarok is somewhere around 6B just in the skillbook cost, whereas a Machariel is about 750M in skill book costs. This throws our ratio cost a little askew.

All those high cost skills take a lot of time to train (For perfect skills, well over a year in training time). What does the Ragnarok get for that training?

So, the question is not whether a Ragnarok is overpowered compared to 30 machariels, flat out comparing EHP and DPS of one versus the 30. The question is, does the increased skillbook cost and training time justify the extra power projection associated with being a mobile jump bridge, having a doomsday device, having a massive SMA, storing jump clones, reducing sig radius, and having up to 5 warfare links.

Is a Machariel overpowered because it can hit an interceptor with a skilled pilot at the helm? No.

Is a Titan overpowered because it can hit a cruiser with a skilled pilot at the helm? No.

Does the massive amount of Titans fielded today present a game changing imbalance? Yes.

So. The only change to Titans (and all ships with Ewar Immunity) should be to remove that ewar immunity. EWAR immunity is a bullshit mechanic. Supercarriers have a module that allows for disrupting all ewar anyways, so fuck ship based ewar immunity.

In addition:

1.) Allow Titans to be constructed in all Null Security systems, not just Sovereignty Systems. In addition, remove the universe wide announcement that a CSAA has been anchored and onlined in a particular system. (This removes the ability of the current Titan/Super power Blocs to outright control the widescale production of Titans/Supers, allowing smaller alliances at least a small ability to "ninja" build or "guerilla" build Supers and Titans). Expanding on this idea: Allow Supercarriers to be constructed in All Null and Low Security systems.

2.) Buff the EHP of your standard Carrier and Dreadnaught. Currently they have between 2M and 4M EHP depending on how well/pimp they are fit. A Shiny Carrier should cost 4B Isk, and have 6M EHP. A Shiny Dreadnaught should cost 5B isk and have 8M EHP. (Theory crafters who know more than I could come up with a better price/ehp slot for Carriers and Dreadnaughts that would bring them back into line with the current power dichotomy between Subcapitals and Supers)

3.) Give Dreadnaughts their drone bays back.

4.) Give Carriers 1 Warfare Link (similar to Tier 2 Battlecruisers) and a 99% reduction in CPU cost for a single warfare link

My personal opinion is that any attempt to comprehend and logically understand the problem by an individual makes their argument valid to a degree. That degree depends on an individual's involvement and experience with what they are arguing for or against.

Now I don't currently live in SOV space, but have. Personally I didn't like much so I moved back to low sec. I have considered making a trip to NPC space when I get bored of lowsec or it becomes a grind for me. I live in low sec, so why isn't my opinion on bringing sov mechanics to low sec or NPC space, for that matter, invalid.

If sov players and alliances say sov needs to be fixed, then I trust that it does need to be fixed, but to these same people to say that NPC space and Low Sec need sov mechanics I will revert back to the point that "people who aren't in sov-holding alliances apparently aren't allowed to comment about EVE sov mechanics and how they're applied."

One of the four topics of discussion was, "the transposition of sovereignty mechanics to NPC null-sec and/or low-sec." Regarding the validity of people not involved in the matter, the answer Jester gave was NO.

So there you have it, sov holding alliances and their member DON'T get a say in NPC space and Low Sec mechanics. While I think this position is extreme, imho it's better than the trend in EVE where the game is designed for the enjoyment of sov holders and high sec dwellers.

I think that everyone's opinion matters, but the inhabitants of NPC null and low sec should matter the most in how changes to those places will affect the game. If there is talk of introducing sov mechanics to NPC null and low sec, then the young Tusker does, in fact, have a valid and valuable opinion to weight in on the matter.

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Jester's Trek to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with Jester's Trek. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.